3. Privileges and Immunities

Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, Twenty-Second Report, Minutes of
Proceedings, June 18, 1996, Issue No. 1, p. 50. The report was presented to
the House on June 18, 1996 (Journals, pp.
565-6).

It
is for this reason that section 327 of the Canada Elections Act, R.S.C.
1985, c. E-2, was enacted to forbid pledges. This section makes it illegal for
any candidate for election as a Member of Parliament to sign any written
document by way of a demand or claim on the candidate if it requires the
candidate to follow any course of action that will prevent him or her from
exercising freedom of action in Parliament, if elected, or to resign as a Member
if called on to do so by those who present the pledge.
See also Chapter 4, “The House of Commons and Its Members”.

United
Kingdom, House of Commons, Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, 1966-67,
Report, p. 9. In its Third Report to the House, the United Kingdom, House of
Commons, Select Committee on Privileges in 1976-77 recommended that a definition
of “proceedings in parliament” be legislated, though this did not
occur. The proposed definition had originally been suggested by the United
Kingdom, Joint Committee on the Publication of Proceedings in Parliament
(1969-70). In its Report presented to both Houses on March 30, 1999, the United
Kingdom Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege again recommended that a
statutory definition be enacted (para. 129, p.
38.)

See
Maingot, 2nd ed., pp. 90, 92-4, 101-2, for an analysis of the
scope of this privilege in relation to the role of the modern Member of
Parliament, and the reasons of Hugessen A.C.J., for the Superior Court of
Québec in Re Ouellet (No. 1), (1976) 67 D.L.R. (3) 73 (English
version) or [1976] C.S. 503 (French version); confirmed by the Court of Appeal
of Québec at (1976) 72 D.L.R. (3d) 95 (English version) or [1976] C.A.
788 (French version). See also the ruling given by Speaker Jerome,
Debates, May 15, 1978, p.
5411.

On
December 7, 1984, John Nunziata (York South–Weston) rose on a question of
privilege to claim that comments made by Svend Robinson (Burnaby) in committee
constituted a contempt of Parliament. Mr. Robinson had alleged United States
Central Intelligence Agency penetration at senior management levels of
Petro-Canada and had named several individuals as CIA agents. In his ruling,
Speaker Bosley noted that the statements made by Mr. Robinson did not constitute
a contempt of Parliament in that no Member or official of the House had been
obstructed or impeded in the discharge of his or her duty. On December 21, 1984,
Mr. Robinson rose in the House to retract his remarks in the committee. He said
that he had relied upon a confidential source of information and had availed
himself of parliamentary immunity to accuse the Petro-Canada employees of spying
for the CIA. He then went on to state: “While the tradition of
parliamentary immunity is a long and important one, in retrospect I regret that
I used my immunity to name these individuals. I have written to both men to
express unreservedly my regret for having publicly named them in the Justice
Committee. As well, Mr. Speaker, I wish at this time to issue a complete and
unequivocal retraction of the allegations I made and unreservedly apologize to
the two individuals involved… .” (see Debates, December 7,
1984, pp. 1004-7; December 11, 1984, pp. 1114-5; December 21, 1984, p.
1447).

On
April 14, 1987, Otto Jelinek (Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport)
raised a question of privilege regarding oral questions asked about an alleged
conflict of interest involving himself. Speaker Fraser ruled that the
Minister’s capacity to function as a Minister and a Member was not
impaired. See Debates, April 14, 1987, pp. 5124-34; May 5, 1987, pp.
5765-6.

Debates,
September 30, 1994, p. 6371. On September 27, 1994, Svend Robinson
(Burnaby–Kingsway) raised a point of order concerning remarks made by
Roseanne Skoke (Central Nova) during second reading debate on Bill C-41
(Criminal Code Amendment (sentencing)) on September 20, 1994. Speaker Parent
gave his ruling on September 30, stating that although he realized there existed
a profound difference of opinion between the two Members, he acknowledged that
the remarks made by Ms. Skoke were within the context of debate and not directed
at any particular Member. See Debates September 20, 1994, pp. 5912-3;
September 27, 1994, pp.
6183-4.

The
Speaker ruled on a question of privilege raised by Harvie Andre (Minister of
Consumer and Corporate Affairs) on May 21, 1987, concerning questions asked by
Ian Waddell (Vancouver–Kingsway) which, in the Minister’s view,
implied that he was in a possible conflict of interest situation. The Speaker
ruled that he was satisfied that there was no accusation directed against the
Minister. See Debates, May 21, 1987, pp. 6299-306; May 26, 1987, pp.
6375-6.

This
ruling was given on December 3, 1991, following a point of order raised by
Nelson Riis (Kamloops) on November 28, 1991, concerning remarks about the
President of the Public Service Alliance of Canada made by Felix Holtmann
(Portage–Interlake) during “Statements by Members”. See
Debates, November 28, 1991, pp. 5498-9, 5509-10; December 3, 1991, pp.
5679-82.

See
Special Committee on the Rights and Immunities of Members, First Report,
Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, April 4, 1977, Issue No. 1, Appendix
“C”,“The Sub Judice Convention in the Canadian House of
Commons”, pp. 1A: 11-2. See also Philip Laundy, “The Sub Judice Convention in the Canadian House of Commons”, The
Parliamentarian, Vol. 57, No. 3 (July 1976), pp.
211-4.

The
practice has been codified in some jurisdictions either by the adoption of
Standing Orders (Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, India (Lok Sabha), New Zealand) or by
way of resolution (United Kingdom (House of Commons)). See also May,
22nd ed., pp. 333,
383-4.

For
a discussion of the meaning of the term “felony”, see Edward
McWhinney, “Forfeiture of Office on Conviction of an ‘Infamous
Crime’,” Canadian Parliamentary Review, Vol. 12, No. 1
(Spring 1989), pp.
2-6.

On
February 16, 1965, G.J. McIlraith (President of the Privy Council) raised a
question of privilege concerning the effects on the privileges of the House of
the arrest of Gilles Grégoire (Lapointe) outside the Parliament Buildings
on two warrants for traffic offences. The Speaker ruled the matter prima
facie, and it was subsequently referred to the Standing Committee on
Privileges and Elections. On March 19, 1965, the Committee presented its Fourth
Report which found that the privilege of freedom from arrest of the Member had
not been infringed (Journals, February 16, 1965, pp. 1035-6; March 19,
1965, pp.
1141-2).

Maingot,
2nd ed., pp. 157-8. Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 44, notes
that while the House will not normally interfere if a Member is committed for
contempt, it does reserve the right to inquire into the nature of the offence
and protect Members in proper
cases.

Jury
selection is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. While exemption from jury duty
is claimed as a right by the House of Commons, provincial jury legislation
usually includes Members of Parliament as one of the exempt categories. In some
provincial statutes, the staff of Members of the Legislative Assembly as well as
officers of the Assembly are also exempted from jury duty. See, for example,
The Jury Act, Revised Statutes of New Brunswick, 1973, c. J-3.1, s. 3;
Juries Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, c. J-3, s. 3; Jurors
Act, Revised Statutes of Québec, c. J-2, s. 4; The Jury Act, 1981,
Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1980-81, c. J-4.1, s.
4.